The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1887-10-15
THE WAY 1T WAS DONE IN THE SIXTH
DISTRICT.
Another Such Victory Would be Ruin.
IBaton Rouge Truth.l

Baton Rouge TrutA.l
The methods adopted in the Congres-
sional Convention last week by which
the E;sttiette delegation from st. Lam
dry and the Thorpe delegation from
Avoyelles were seated, are sufficient to
cast Opprobrinm upon any party that
uses them.
The contest in the convention turned,
strange to say, not upon the nomina-
tion OF a Congressman, but the seating |
of q NIcEuery delegation from each OF
these two parishes. What McEnery |
had to do with the Congressional Con-
vention has not been explained; but
all the same, on the eve OF the meeting |
Mai. L. A. Burke and Geo. w. DuPre,
Of New Orleans, were on hand indus
triously at work among the delegates,
re.enforced next day by such lusty
warriors as James u. Houston, l.. i.
Leche aud Aucoin, also non. residents
and all appointees OF NIcEnery. When
the delegates arrived here the situation
was found to hinge upon the admission
of the delegations from st. Landry and
Avoyelles. The sequel shows that 1t
made no difference what the rights OF
either of these delegations were, the
supporters of Mcl1nery were determtn-
ed to seat their friends ut all hazards
and they did it without any regard for
appearances and without according the
contestants the equitable privilege of Il
hearing.
The AvOyelles case was first acted
upon. The committee on credentials,
! which had fully Investigated the con>
test, reported by majority In favor Of
seating the Irfon and Thorpe delega-
tions on half vote each; while the
minority reported in favor of the
Thorpe delegation. Voting down
motion to accord the contestants a
hearing on the floor Of the convention,
the minority report, without discuss
sion, was adopted. Did such thing
ever have precedent?
But the st. Landry case is even more
fragrant. The majority Of the commit
tee on credentials reported in favor Of
seating the Little delegation. The mi
norliy, after examination of the mat
ter, unwilling to affirm contrary
view, simply referred the st. Landry
case back to the Convention. And
what did the Convention do? Like n
horse that had taken the bit in his
mouth, it ran rough-shod over every
, sentiment of equity and justice by seat
ing the Estilette delegation, overruling
the majority report-after thorough
discussion and deliberation Of the mer-
:, its of the case? No! But aftcr grudg'
ingly giving twenty minutes debate on
each side, a tune 30 short that each
contesting delegattn recognized the fu-
tiIity of even attempting discussion.
What manner OF behavior Is this for
a convention which is supposed to
, represent the dominant end reputable
! party Of the State? The right OF the
people of two popuIous parishes to cast
their vote in convention according tC
y their wishes, made subsidiary to bar
= gain and trade! a prominent aud
+ reputable McEnery man told us that ir
a obedience to the unit rule he voted tt
;. seat Estilette, but before doing SO ht
r went through the necessary prelimi
nary of tax ling vomit. Yet this Il
= proclaimed to the people OF Louisian;
as glorious victory for McEnery
Il Let him and his friends claim thei
Il Victory-the triumph OF wrong owe
s rlght-a success founded on padfockinl
n the mouths OF nine.tenths of the Dem
- ocratic voters of the Democratic paris
= OF st: Landry, and clear majority G
the people Of Avoyellcs!